TIME calls bloggers “random lunatics”
In an article entitled “Do Newspapers Have a Future,” author Michael Kinsley at TIME magazine had this to say: “Meanwhile, there is the blog terror: people are getting their understanding of the world from random lunatics riffing in their underwear, rather than professional journalists with standards and passports.”
He’s got a point. However, he also exposes the overall threatened view of traditional media towards bloggers, and rightfully so. Meta-journalism exists, works, and will naturally eat into the audience of papers, TV, and magazines. Though I blog both personally and professionally, I still believe the traditional reporter/journalist has a future, but I also believe good bloggers obviate the total number of of needed journalists, so expect continued change in the industry.
Kinsley does comment on why blogs are so popular and why British press is generally better: “The Brits have never bought into the American separation of reporting and opinion. They assume that an intelligent person, paid to learn about some subject, will naturally develop views about it. And they consider it more truthful to express those views than to suppress them in the name of objectivity.”
I call it logical subjectivity. People like humans with opinions. Everyone knows FOX is more conservative and CNN is more liberal. Isn’t it about time each start embracing their subjectivity rather than spinning their offering as “fair and balanced?”
4 Comments
Hm. I think we are all crazy anyway 😉 Bloggers have the ability to level the playing field. Do you know what it costs to get some kind of ink in a real newspaper? Time, effort, whatever, it is unfair to the “small guys.” That is where bloggers pick up the slack.
I bet there is a huge difference in the way that bloggers read a blog post as opposed to a non-blogger (especially a newspaper person). Now that would make for an interesting study. (btw, my blog is http://www.jibberjobber.com/blog)
This is a very interesting post. I am majoring in journalism (although I don’t really want to be a journalist… long story) and we are constantly talking about the importance of blogs and how this “new media” is changing the face of journalism.
Believe it or not, many credible news sources have blogs because of the interaction. News agencies want that feedback. Blogs allow the media to become a two-way communication process. All a news agency has to do is get onto their blog and they know pretty much instantly what their viewers/readers/listeners felt about their coverage.
I personally feel that blogs make journalism more objective. Sometimes you need a ton of subjective opinions to produce an objective outcome. It is not always conservative or liberal… sometimes you need some grey.
I think Kinsley has NO point. Since when did having a passport make you a better writer? I find blatently innaccurate information in “professional” writing all the time.
So, if I go to college and get a degree in journalism does my blog automatically become a legit news outlet?
I agree that people like blogs because there isn’t a false pretense of trying to be “fair and balanced.” I would much rather read two opposing blog posts on a topic than one news release that may or may not have an agenda.
Perhaps people are tired of being told what is and what isn’t “real news and reporting.”